you totally misunderstood the mail. The freeze is about the days between now and the release itself on Tuesday (monday evening actually). That's perfectly valid.
The idea then is to allow only bug fixes in 5.3.1, and only bug fixes. What's wrong with that? -- Pierre On Fri, Jun 26, 2009 at 9:26 PM, Scott MacVicar<sc...@macvicar.net> wrote: > On 26 Jun 2009, at 19:59, Lukas Kahwe Smith wrote: >> >> On 26.06.2009, at 20:26, Pierre Joye <pierre....@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> On Fri, Jun 26, 2009 at 7:30 PM, Scott MacVicar<sc...@macvicar.net> >>> wrote: >>>> >>>> On 26 Jun 2009, at 16:26, Lukas Kahwe Smith wrote: >>>> >>>>> Aloha, >>>>> >>>>> So the last fix is just being prepared for a commit and so we will be >>>>> tagging 5.3.0 soon. >>>>> >>>>> We would like to up hold the commit freeze until 5.3.0 is announced >>>>> next >>>>> Tuesday. >>>>> >>>> >>>> This freeze that you guys have implemented is frustrating, just branch >>>> 5_3 >>>> into a release branch and Johannes can take selective fixes from 5_3 as >>>> needed. >>>> >>>> We all know your reasons for the freeze and agree with it but holding up >>>> regular development is a PITA. >>> >>> It is not holding up development. It is about getting a viable release >>> cycle and to give us the minimum safety to release 5.3.1 in a >>> reasonable time frame. Please explain me what's wrong to allow only >>> bug fixes for this phase? >>> >>> Also please note that we have HEAD for all the developments and new >>> features. >> >> Exactly. >> I will do my best to track things that need to be merged. Best is to note >> if something needs to be merged. >> >> But if you all feel it's such a huge burden then you can of course insist >> on putting the burden on the RMs. The fact of the matter is that our current >> infrastructure is not fit for providing both sides with an efficient >> solution. >> > > If we're freezing some more after this release for the SVN conversion then > we could have a pretty cold branch for another week or so. > > As I've already said, I agree with only allow verified bug fixes by Johannes > into 5.3.0. it's this extra bureaucracy that is getting added on top that's > sucking hard. > > I don't want to leave it up to someone else to merge it into 5.3, I should > be doing it myself. It's possible that things could get accidentally missed > wen someone else is applying it. > > Scott > -- Pierre http://blog.thepimp.net | http://www.libgd.org -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
